Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[stephen55]

I rest my case.

In principle, it should be OK "in law" for anyone to own anything until such time as negligence, criminal action, or inherent risk to the general welfare -- hazardous materials, fire danger, spontaneous activation, etc -- can be demonstrated in a court of law.

We now have more than ample evidence that handguns with thirty round magazines are an inherent risk to the general welfare.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

But the Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns. End of debate.

 

[Pure]

ok 2nd amt, yada, yada

should a mentally unstable person with no criminal record or record of incarceration for mental illness be able to buy a gun *on the spot,* meaning ask for it, and within minutes, pay for it and walk out of the store with it.

for example, would the 2nd-ers be ok with a one week waiting period?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The means already exist to check criminal history almost immediately. Most states have laws prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms. What we dont have is access to mental health history or medical history.

I think legal records of commitment for treatment oughta be public records. I'm speaking of official hearings where the patient contests involuntary treatment before a judge NOT a 72 hour hold for assessment.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But the Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns. End of debate.

The usual suspects are quite selective in accepting rulings of SCOTUS or similar state bodies. Initiatives have been passed in CA against their wishes, the most notable recent one being Prop. 8. Although the majority of the voters favored it, the courts ruled it to be contrary to the US Cobstitution. The usual suspects hailed this overturning of the will of the people as a great victory for truth and justice but, when the courts rule against them, they cry like babies.

For the record, BTW, I opposed Prop. 8 and campaigned and voted against it, but it was a well known example, so I cited it here.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOX

I dont have a problem with folks contesting anything so long as they honor the existing law until the worm turns. The law isnt an effing buffet you cherry pick from.

In my time I've deliberately violated court orders, and made my case with the judge when my action seriously pissed her off. As I reminded one old gal, I PREVENTED ME AND YOU FROM BEING THE NEWS. She snorted and that was the end of that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The usual suspects are quite selective in accepting rulings of SCOTUS or similar state bodies. Initiatives have been passed in CA against their wishes, the most notable recent one being Prop. 8. Although the majority of the voters favored it, the courts ruled it to be contrary to the US Cobstitution. The usual suspects hailed this overturning of the will of the people as a great victory for truth and justice but, when the courts rule against them, they cry like babies.

For the record, BTW, I opposed Prop. 8 and campaigned and voted against it, but it was a well known example, so I cited it here.

Cried like babies? No. Began the process to overturn an unconstitutional measure that victimised a minority group? Yes. That's the right, and the duty, of every United States citizen.

Fuck you, you stupid fucking fuckwad.

 

[Weird Harold]

...America of the eighteenth century bears little resemblance to America of the twenty-first century. That's why the Constitution was framed to be amendable in the first place.

Until it IS amended, the second amendment is still the law of the land. Since you clearly believe it is no longer relevant, better start campaigning.

I do not believe that the intent of the Second Amendment (a well regulated militia)was for civilians to be armed with weapons superior to those of the military.

It was clearly the intent that the be able to meet and successfuly resist a military with top of theline weapons. If you're going to frame your argument with what the authors of the BoR would want today, you really ought to get the authors' intent right.

At any rate, the Supremes disagrees with you that the Militia clause is relevant to individual ownership of firearms. Long after the BoR was ratified, congresss added a few interpretations:

In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ​

That one is non-binding, this one is:

The 1968 Gun Control Act added a "sporting purpose" test which barred imports of military surplus rifles (a goal of many domestic gun makers) and a "points system" for imported handguns which barred from importation handguns based on penalizing features (short barrels, small caliber, short overall length or height, non-adjustable sights, etc.) believed to define the Saturday night special class of handgun.

So congress at least isn't the lest bit concerned about the militia test -- but if you insist on the militia being the driving clause of the amendment, then the military purpose of the second demands a "military purposes" test rather than a "sporting purposes" test.

I believe "well regulated" meant co-ordinated, trained, drilled and under the command of experienced officers. The US Supreme Court agrees with me.

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[137] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Yes, I know the Supremes have cite that meaning of "regulated" -- but what I said was, "contemporary documents use 'regulated' as a synonym for 'equipped.'"

The Second Amendment was passed on December 15, 1791. At that time, the state of the art firearm was a single shot, muzzle loading rifle.

So you agree that the Authors intended that the militia be permitted to keep and bear "state of the art firearms" -- after all, the authors didn't say "the right to keep antique matshlock blunderbusses in the militia armory," now did they?

Move ahead to 2011. Things are very different. The world is a very different place.

But is the principle of allowing the 'militia' state of that art infantry weapons invalidated? The second doesn't place any limits or definitions on "arms."

Should law abiding, responsible, mentally healthy civilian adults be allowed to own firearms? I say yes.

That takes care of the "keep" part. No qualifiers about being fit for military duty or under the discipline of a militia commander? No requirement on were or how to keep it?

How about the 'and bear' part that also isn't suppose to be infringed, either? How do state laws about carrying weapons into a school -- concealed or open carry -- match up with the right to bear arms without infringement?

Should there be reasonable limits as to what type of firearms are in the hands of these civilians? Again, I say yes.

What do you consider reasonable -- at least in ball-park figures.

Restrictions on action type? Arbitrary restrictions on cycle rate for autoloaders? Arbitrary restrictions on magazine capacity? Restrictions based on appearance rather than function?

"...Shall not be infringed" -- whatever linguistic shift or quibble about individual or collective rights might be, and have, been suggested, just how do anti-gun advocates get around such a flat and unambiguous statement?

Why they make shit up about what the author's intent was, of course.

They decide on a "sporting purposes test" when no 'arm" -- firearm or cold steel arm -- in the late 18th century had a purely sporting purpose. I think the founding fathers would LOL ast the very concept.

I don't really have a problem with 'reasonable' restrictions, but my idea of 'reasonable' lies more in the direction determination of competency than restricting size, function or appearance.

 

[colddiesel]

In abstract theory, there should be no bar to you owning anything at all until such time as you give cause to believe you are not rational and responsible -- that pesky presumption of innocence thing, you now. If I wish to bar you from owning a nuclear weapon, I should have to show that you -- individually and specifically -- are not competent to keep and maintain radioactive materials, toxic chemicals, and the high explosive components of such a device,

OR

I would have to show that you -- individually and specifically -- had demonstrated intent to use such a device in a criminal manner.


"Only a crazy person would want one" isn't sufficient justification to bar a person from owning one.

"A nuclear bomb is a complicated device, which, if not subjected to periodic maintenance, and stored under extraordinary precautions, can be in and of itself a hazard to to genral public. It should be subject to the same limitations and restrictions as possession and/or transport of hazardous materials" is a valid reason for placing restrictions on who may own a nuclear device and how it must be stored and protected," is a vlid reason for restrictions

In the real world and in the context of the general practice at the time the bill of rights was written, the authors likely never intended that every citizen should have more than weapons and equipment consistent with the general issue to the rank and file of a standing army. Anything more than what each individual militiman would be expected to carry to a muster by himself -- eg NOT crew-served weapons like cannon, which would be expected to be "held in common."

IOW, crew-served heavy machine guns, tanks, artillery pieces, fighter planes, and nuclear bombs aren't issued to the rank and file of a standing army and shouldn't be "an individual right," for lack of a better term; reasonable licensing, transfer and transport restrictions -- such as are placed on automatic weapons by the national firearms act of 1934 -- are within the intent of the second amendment.

Note that does NOT mean that such weapons can be flatly banned, only that reasonable restrictions on ownership are permissible.



In principle, it should be OK "in law" for anyone to own anything until such time as negligence, criminal action, or inherent risk to the general welfare -- hazardous materials, fire danger, spontaneous activation, etc -- can be demonstrated in a court of law.

Restrictions to minimize or eliminate inherent risk to the general welfare -- commensurate with those imposed on poisonous chemicals, explosives, and hazardous industrial processes -- are not only reasonable, but necessary.

However, most of those necessary restrictions don't apply to conventional firearms -- if you set a gun aside and don't maintain it for a couple of decades, there is no risk of that weapon dragging itself to a pubic meeting and going off spontaneously. When you do get around to picking it up and trying to shoot something, it either will fire as it was designed to do, or it will not. There is no inherent danger to a conventional firearm because it cannot and will not do anything without some outside agency causing it to.

By conventional firearms, I mean any firearm that is strictly mechanical -- not newfangled "safe guns" with electronic fire control and/or something like an electricaly driven gatling gun.

However, what I object to the most about "gun control" is the concept that the actions of a madman somehow proves that I do not and cannot own a firearm responsibly -- or for that matter that YOU cannot own a firearm responsibly, that something about the firearm itself will corrupt YOU and turn YOU into a a raving lunatic or drooling incompetent.

For me, being opposed to gun-control is as much about YOUR right to be considered a rational and responsible citizen unless and until YOU provide some concrete reason to believe otherwise.

Thanks for your informative response. At least I understand the position better even if I struggle to make sense of it.

It seems to me that in the short term little change other than some means of separating guns from the mentally deranged might be more effectively looked at.

 

[Weird Harold]

We now have more than ample evidence that handguns with thirty round magazines are an inherent risk to the general welfare.

We have no such thing.

We have clear evidence that disturbed individuals -- who should not have access to firearms of any capacity -- are a threat to public safety. So are disturbed individuals who wear vests filled with explosives and nutjobs with access to too much diesel fuel and fertilizer.

We haven't seen any of the latter two types here in the US recently, but the individuals deserve classification as a threat to pubic safety, not the tools they choose to wreak mayhem.

You chose to focus on the object involved, I choose to focus on the action involved. Prohibition doesn't work. Treatment and education does -- if treatment had been available and people had been educated ooon how to get a recalcitrant patient to accept treatment, this tragedy could have been prevented.

There were apparently a good may people who could see something bad coming from the shooter. Had they had the means and knoweldge of how to get him effective treatment...

The object, otoh -- a glock 19 with extended magazine -- did only what it was designed to do.

Removing that object from the situation wouldn't prevent some action by the deranged individual. A different magazine would have slowed him down by about 2-3 seconds. A different make or model might have slowed him down more or let him shoot faster. A different caliber might have raised the death toll or lowered it.

If a gun wasn't availble, he might have gone berserk with a sword or baseball bat, or he might have resorted to any of a dozen recipes for poison gas or explosives that can be found online.

How many objects will have to be banned before banning things instead of action is seen for the waste of time and effort that it is?

Getting another ban on alcohol is a near impossibility in the US, because the immediate response is "Oh God, NO! we can't go through the cirme and violence spawned by Prohibition again. We've learned our lesson about that!"

Why is it so hard for the same people horrified at the crime and violence spawned by banning alcohol can't see that banning drugs is doing the same thing and banning guns, tobacco, sugar, or anything else produces the same results?

The only thing that can ever be successfully banned is something that nobody wants in the first place.

 

[Weird Harold]

It seems to me that in the short term little change other than some means of separating guns from the mentally deranged might be more effectively looked at.

should a mentally unstable person with no criminal record or record of incarceration for mental illness be able to buy a gun *on the spot,* meaning ask for it, and within minutes, pay for it and walk out of the store with it.

Preventing the "mentally derannged" and "Mentally unstable" from possessing weapons -- not owning or keeping, just "possessing," as in "having in his possession" -- should be a priortiy goal of any new legislation.

One problem is how do you define and determine those conditions. Without extended observation, even severely disturbed can act "normal" for long enough to sign an application for a background check and then to pick up the gun after an arbitrary waiting period. Such aperson would be no more mentally stable a week later than he was when he first entered the shop -- how much tax money are we wiling to spend educating FFL holders and their employees how to detect "mental derangement" and "mental instability."

A "mentally unstable person with no criminal record or record of incarceration for mental illness" is legally assumed to be a competent and responsible person -- since they have no record to show up on a background check -- unless you mandate psychiatric records be made public so the background check can detect medical conditions.

In order to block sales to known mental cases, their condition would have to be a matter of public record which is counter to recent precedents about the right to "medical privacy."

for example, would the 2nd-ers be ok with a one week waiting period?

A second problem, is that not all "mentally deranged" people would be clinically or legally mentally deranged when they purchased a gun.

You could hypothetically scan a customer with a 35th century medical and psychological tri-corder and sell him a gun and have him struck in the head by a micro-meteorite as he leaves the shop and start hearing voices telling him your tri-corder tried to make him your sex slave and his brand new gun is the perfect tool for making you regret the attempt.

IOW, medical and psychological conditions are subject to change without notice or warning. If the customer is mentally deranged on the first visit to the shop, it isn't very likely tha the will be all better, forever, a week later.


With current technology and currrent laws and precedents regarding a right to privacy I can't see any law passing muster that runs into the right to privacy AND the second amendment. The best that can be done is to make sure court findings of mental derangement get into the background checks and make it easier for the courts to be brought into the process when a problem is identified.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

WH

But legal adjudications are forever. If an assessment claim is bogus, purge the record; if the claim is bonafide make it available for background checks. You can always sunset the record, as we do credit records; say, 5 years if nothing else occurs.

Of course, none of it stops you from borrowing or stealing a gun.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Preventing the "mentally derannged" and "Mentally unstable" from possessing weapons -- not owning or keeping, just "possessing," as in "having in his possession" -- should be a priortiy goal of any new legislation.

One problem is how do you define and determine those conditions. Without extended observation, even severely disturbed can act "normal" for long enough to sign an application for a background check and then to pick up the gun after an arbitrary waiting period. Such aperson would be no more mentally stable a week later than he was when he first entered the shop -- how much tax money are we wiling to spend educating FFL holders and their employees how to detect "mental derangement" and "mental instability."

A "mentally unstable person with no criminal record or record of incarceration for mental illness" is legally assumed to be a competent and responsible person -- since they have no record to show up on a background check -- unless you mandate psychiatric records be made public so the background check can detect medical conditions.

In order to block sales to known mental cases, their condition would have to be a matter of public record which is counter to recent precedents about the right to "medical privacy."



A second problem, is that not all "mentally deranged" people would be clinically or legally mentally deranged when they purchased a gun.

You could hypothetically scan a customer with a 35th century medical and psychological tri-corder and sell him a gun and have him struck in the head by a micro-meteorite as he leaves the shop and start hearing voices telling him your tri-corder tried to make him your sex slave and his brand new gun is the perfect tool for making you regret the attempt.

IOW, medical and psychological conditions are subject to change without notice or warning. If the customer is mentally deranged on the first visit to the shop, it isn't very likely tha the will be all better, forever, a week later.


With current technology and currrent laws and precedents regarding a right to privacy I can't see any law passing muster that runs into the right to privacy AND the second amendment. The best that can be done is to make sure court findings of mental derangement get into the background checks and make it easier for the courts to be brought into the process when a problem is identified.

People do have a right to privacy, but they can also waive that right. If a person wants to buy a gun, he or she could be required to sign a staterment authorizing the local police to have access to arrest records and any psychiatric treatments that have been done, in that jurisdiction or anywhere else. They already have the former, of course, and they probably should have the latter as well, just as they know the residences of sexual offenders. This information would not be released to the gun dealer, just approval or disapproval, but no reason given.

If they refuse to sign the waiver, then they should forget about buying the gun.

 

[oggbashan]

Unfortunately we had mass murder committed in the UK in Cumbria in 2010 despite our strict controls on the owning of firearms.

The perpetrator held the guns legally and had no record of mental instability.

Introducing controls in the US might make it more difficult for mentally unstable individuals to obtain guns, but the Cumbria shootings suggest that no one can predict all individuals who might decide to kill people.

Og

 

[stephen55]

Amend the Second Amendment

If the right of people to live their lives without being killed by gun violence is trumped by the Second Amendment, then it's time to change things.

Until it IS amended, the second amendment is still the law of the land. Since you clearly believe it is no longer relevant, better start campaigning.

The Second Amendment is relevant. It guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That doesn't preclude the states or the feds from bringing about reasonable limits on just what firearms are reasonable.


It was clearly the intent that the be able to meet and successfuly resist a military with top of theline weapons. If you're going to frame your argument with what the authors of the BoR would want today, you really ought to get the authors' intent right.

I have no idea what the authors of the Second Amendment back in 1791 would have to say about the legitimate and reasonable civilian ownership of firearms in 2011. All I can surmise is that, because the authors were reasonable people, they wouldn't have a problem with reasonable limits.

At any rate, the Supremes disagrees with you that the Militia clause is relevant to individual ownership of firearms. Long after the BoR was ratified, congresss added a few interpretations:
I understand that. The SCOTUS does not require a firearm owner to be in the militia. My point was that full gonzo military weaponry is a far cry from a deer rifle or a duck gun, much less a muzzle loading flintlock. Current law should pertain to current conditions.

So congress at least isn't the lest bit concerned about the militia test -- but if you insist on the militia being the driving clause of the amendment, then the military purpose of the second demands a "military purposes" test rather than a "sporting purposes" test.

I don't insist that the militia test is relevant today. I've made that clear. However, today, there is no need for civilian militias. The country is adequately protected by the various branches of the military and the National guard, all of who are well regulated; as in well trained, disciplined and lead by competent officers. You can't say the same for the extremist, paranoid, anti-everything, religion spouting militias we see in the news. Military grade weapons in the hands of those people is seriously scary.

Yes, I know the Supremes have cite that meaning of "regulated" -- but what I said was, "contemporary documents use 'regulated' as a synonym for 'equipped.'"

I don't agree, but it's a moot point. SCOTUS has made it clear that membership in a militia is irrelevant to owning a firearm.


So you agree that the Authors intended that the militia be permitted to keep and bear "state of the art firearms" -- after all, the authors didn't say "the right to keep antique matshlock blunderbusses in the militia armory," now did they?

Technology evolves and the law has to evolve along with it. The Constitution is a framework. It was never intended to be the unalterable last word. Current lawmakers should amend, toss out or bring in new legislation to reflect the current situation.

But is the principle of allowing the 'militia' state of that art infantry weapons invalidated? The second doesn't place any limits or definitions on "arms."

Harold, you can't have it both ways. You've already argued that the militia test is gone. SCOTUS has repeatedly defined "well regulated", and has also repeatedly upheld the right to own firearms. Just because the Second Amendment doesn't mention any limits or definitions of firearms (everyone knew it meant single shot muzzle loaders), doesn't mean that current legislators can't bring in current laws to deal with current technology and who can and who can't have it. Just because the Second Amendment doesn't specifically prohibit the right of the people to own field guns and tactical atomic artillery shells, cruise missiles...you get the idea.


That takes care of the "keep" part. No qualifiers about being fit for military duty or under the discipline of a militia commander? No requirement on were or how to keep it?

The Second Amendment doesn't require the people to keep their firearms under safe lock and key when not being used. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea. It is a good idea, and I have no problem with legislation that requires just that. It's 2011, for God's sake!

How about the 'and bear' part that also isn't suppose to be infringed, either? How do state laws about carrying weapons into a school -- concealed or open carry -- match up with the right to bear arms without infringement?

2011 is not 1791. I am unaware of any historical documentation of someone carrying a muzzle loading rifle and maybe a muzzle loading pistol or two, into a school and murdering 32 people and wounding many others.

While there were attempted and successful political assassinations back then, the shooter wasn't able to get off another twenty-nine shots after the first one.

What do you consider reasonable -- at least in ball-park figures.

Restrictions on action type? Arbitrary restrictions on cycle rate for autoloaders? Arbitrary restrictions on magazine capacity? Restrictions based on appearance rather than function?

My personal view is that civilian ownership of firearms, which we both agree has nothing to do with membership in a militia, is for hunting, target shooting, competition and defense of one's home and self. (This last one is heavily promoted by the NRA types, but statistics show that the presence of a firearm in a home is far more likely to end up hurting someone in the home than it is to hurt a bad guy breaking into the home.)

I have no issue with auto-loading firearms. I own six. I cannot see any real reason for a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon. As for restrictions on magazine capacity, yes. A handgun with a thirty shot magazine should not be in civilian hands. Jared Loughner has shown us that at least. When it comes to magazine capacity, if a bad guy breaks into your home and you can't do anything about it with the first six shots...you shouldn't be shooting. Another twenty-four shots and you're probably going to shoot up your own family and the neighbors.

"...Shall not be infringed" -- whatever linguistic shift or quibble about individual or collective rights might be, and have, been suggested, just how do anti-gun advocates get around such a flat and unambiguous statement?

What I'm saying is that in 1791 it was just fine to not infringe on the peoples right to have and bear arms. It's 2011. The Second Amendment, as it stands, is no longer working for the people. It allows for current firearms to be an inherent risk to the general welfare of the people. I'm saying that it's time to amend the Second Amendment. I have no idea if the original authors would agree with me, and I don't care. They died two centuries ago.

They decide on a "sporting purposes test" when no 'arm" -- firearm or cold steel arm -- in the late 18th century had a purely sporting purpose. I think the founding fathers would LOL ast the very concept.

The founding fathers aren't here to laugh out loud. The America they lived in hasn't been around for over two centuries. My guess, however, is that they would welcome current legislators to deal with current conditions.


I don't really have a problem with 'reasonable' restrictions, but my idea of 'reasonable' lies more in the direction determination of competency than restricting size, function or appearance.

Harold, that works great if you're a reasonable person. All reasonable, law abiding gun owners use their guns reasonably. So the question is whether current gun legislation is doing a proper job of protecting people from gun violence. I say that the answer is no.

Can proper legislation still allow the hunters and target shooters to go about their sport and yet keep thirty round handguns out of the hands of everyone (especially the Jared Loughner and the Seung-Hui Cho types) except the real military and police? I say yes.

I'm not an American. I'm Canadian. After Marc Lépine walked into the École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec, armed with a high capacity semi-auto rifle (.223 caliber) and killed fourteen women, wounded ten more women and four men (the guy claimed he was "fighting feminisim"), gun legislation in Canada was tightened up. In particular, magazine capacity was lowered considerably. Firearms that are clearly military (AK-47s) were banned. It hasn't effected my right or ability to go hunting or target shooting at all.

You can ague all you want about just what the authors of the Second Amendment had in mind. The ability to carry out the events at Virginia Tech, the École Polytechnique and Tucson Arizona should not be protected by two century old legislation. It's time for you Americans to amend the Second Amendment.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Laws and injunctions dont stop bullets. All it does it disarms decent people. I mean, how well do drug laws work?

 

[JackLuis]

Loughner's former girlfriend speaks

TUCSON, Ariz. (KGUN9-TV) – Jared Lee Loughner is described as a loner. By all accounts, he stayed away from just about everyone, including his own neighbors. But, at Mountain View High School, it seems things were just a little bit different.

"He was a very nice kid. He was very, very intelligent. He would help me out with like my math and that's how it started off," explained Ashley Figueroa. She told KGUN9 she dated Jared Lee Loughner in high school.

Interesting but not 'expert' testimony.

 

[JackLuis]

Another facet of the story.

Speaker Boehner skips Tucson memorial for RNC cocktail party

The new speaker of the House skipped a nationally televised memorial in Arizona honoring victims of Saturday's shootings, opting instead to host a cocktail party Wednesday night.

In his 'defense' it was scheduled in advance.

The party, organized by Boehner's political action committee, featured 168 members of the Republican National Committee, according to published reports. It took place at at a Maryland resort near Washington at 7 pm EST, coinciding with the memorial slated for 8 pm.

A spokesperson for Boehner told Roll Call Wednesday that the Ohio Republican intended to leave the reception before Obama's address began.

 

[stephen55]

Ban high capacity firearm magazines

The only thing that can ever be successfully banned is something that nobody wants in the first place.

Harold, again I disagree.

From where I live, Americans seem to be very partial to their rights. Any attempt to infringe, restrict or modify those rights seems to be met with howls of protest, threats of armed insurrection and the appearance of Sarah Palin.

Is it so hard to accept that handguns with a thirty shot magazine are inherently dangerous in civilian hands? At my Rod and Gun club, long before high capacity handgun magazines were banned in Canada, NO ONE showed up at the handgun range with thirty shot clips. That's because they were at the range for target shooting. And if someone showed up with a handgun and started popping off shots like Rambo, they were politely instructed in proper range etiquette. If someone wanted to shoot IPSC, they were directed to the IPSC range.

There is no legitimate need for civilians to have thirty shot clips, be it for a rifle or a handgun. If I want to shoot thirty rounds from my 9mm, I reload three times. It isn't much of an imposition.

Where I live, the hunting regs limit shotgun capacity to three shot shells and center fire rifles to five cartridges. When I go to the rifle range for shooting practice, I concentrate on accuracy, not speed. What legitimate use is a thirty round rifle magazine to a civilian? Such rifle clips are clearly meant for auto loading or fully automatic rifles that have little or no place in the hunter's or target shooter's gun case.

Just because Arizona allows people to walk into a gun shop, off the street and walk out with these firearms and high capacity magazines doesn't mean it's a good idea. Jared Loughner is a case in point. So, is banning these high capacity clips impossible? No, it isn't. After the École Polytechnique incident, they were banned in Canada and there were the predictable howls and growls, mutterings of government totalitarianism, and everyone who had a legitimate use for firearms carried on, not inconvenienced in the least.

Things that are simply to dangerous to have around can and should be banned. There was a time in Canada when you could walk into any pharmacy and purchase arsenic. After a few too many elderly and wealthy people met a premature demise from chronic arsenic poisoning, the stuff was banned. Lead in gasoline and paint was banned. 2-4D was banned. Highly flammable children's pajamas were banned.

Is it too much too ask that thirty round magazines be banned? The only people this would slow down are the whack jobs and the seriously bad criminals.

Since Mexico started its crackdown on the drug cartels, the authorities have seized about 26,000 high capacity weapons. The numbers of these weapons in the hands of the bad guys is still very high. The seized weapons are being replaced. Care to guess where they are coming from?

 

[Weird Harold]

What I'm saying is that in 1791 it was just fine to not infringe on the peoples right to have and bear arms. It's 2011. ... I have no idea if the original authors would agree with me, and I don't care. They died two centuries ago.

Then why were you the one to bring up the militia clause?

Like you said, you can't have it both ways.

Your position is that the availability of things is what causes gun violence.

Mine is that crazy people cause gun violence and taking the guns and accessories away from them only directs their craziness to another method which may or may not be less lethal or may be -- as the columbine shooters intended with the propane bombs they never got a chance to set off -- much worse than a mass shooting.

I do not think that taking things away from people who have done nothing will be either the right approach or an effective approach. Identifying the crazy people who are the real danger is definitely more difficult than showing the press piles of inanimate objects and claiming victory, but those objects are NOT the problem.

 

[sr71plt]

We no longer have a militia within the concept of expecting private citizens to put down their plows and muster at the city square to meet a present danger (which, historically, they never did really do to any great extent anyway. When Jefferson as Virginia governor tried to call out the citizen rifles to meet the British, he got the horselaugh and had to beat it out of Richmond and into hiding).

That's rather the point. You're using past obsolence that never did mean much just because having a gun makes you feel like a big man.

 

[Pure]

note to WH.

thank for your reply, regarding a waiting period. by itself, agreed, it's nothing, but i was just 'testing the water.'

i don't really do gun debates anymore and never did much. as the thread shows, the obvious and rational solutions to abating gun violence, those used elsewhere are routinely shot down and/or said to be flawed, as perhaps their implementation would be in the States.

IMO, the US 'gun problem' is insoluble. There is no consensus and no majority with the interest and good will to address the problem.

the premises of the situation, below, rule out any solution.

1) the individual shall have as many rights as possible, except in the most extreme cases of direct infringement on others' rights, e.g. in murder.

2) stores and corporate entitities--including manufacturers-- shall have even more rights, e.g. to inject money into the political system, and shall not be restrained in production of anything** or in making whatever profit they can.

3) politicians are beholden to such corporate entities.

4) there is an armed extremist 'fringe', let's say, of 5% and more importantly a larger group, say 25%, of 'anti government' and often xian fundamentalists who support the alleged rights of that fringe.

5) there is a group of constitutional literalists and 'originalists' who take a 'scriptural approach' to the problem, and object to any measures not expressly authorized.

==
the above preclude any meaningful agreement. as with the education system, the inner cities' infrastructure, and state gov problems, the only possible "way" i see involves the increased perceived advantage of other countries. at one time "sputnik" had such an effect.


and let's not rule out war, as a uniting force. i'd speculate that maybe during wwii, the korean and vietnam wars, there may have been fewer gun problems and shootings. the problem is that wars are NOT sufficiently involving and now involve 'volunteers' [=poor] and contract soldiers. the "war" against terror is somehow not really working in terms of social benefits and social consensus.

---
** As recent reports show, gun sales have soared during this Tuscon affair. Glocks are jumping off the shelves.
I remember reading during the last crisis that a certain gun factory was increasing shifts and working 24 hrs/day, to meet the demand.

 

[3113]

Raising the 9-11 Flag for the Little Girl

Haven't read through the posts here. But this is from the funeral of the 9-year-old.

They raised the "9-11 flag" for her (the biggest flag recovered from 9-11 patch-worked with other recovered flags).

I honestly couldn't watch it all the way through. I'm tired of all the terrorism, international and domestic

 

[Handley_Page]

/off topic

Arizona legislators quickly approved emergency legislation to head off picketing by Westboro Baptist Church near the funeral service for a 9-year-old girl who was killed in the Tucson shootings. The legislation also applies to troops' services.

http://www.military.com/news/article/lawmakers-ban-protests-near-tucson-funerals.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

/on topic

 

[SeaCat]

I have for the most part avoided posting to this thread because of the vitriol and the stubborness of the participants. (Not to mention the snide comments I have received before about my ideas.)

As I see it the problem is not the ownership of Firearms. It is instead in how we prosecute those who break the laws pertaining to ownership and use of firearms.

In the United States we have a large number of laws pertaining to the ownership and use of firearms. They govern who can and can't own a firearm. They govern who can and can't carry concealed or openly and under what circumstances. Unfortunately these laws are rarely enforced.

As an example, here in Florida we have several laws. One of these is called the 10-20-Life Law. This is a mandatory sentancing law enacted in the early 1980's What it means is:

Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender posseses a firearm or destructive device.

Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged.

Mandates a minimum 25 years to life if someone is injured or killed.

Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possesion of a firearm by a felon.

I have lived for over a decade in southern Florida, in a county with well over 1000 felonies commited by people using firearms. Only once have I seen the mandatories being enforced. Usualy they are plea dealed down to almost nothing.

One recent case involved a young man with multiple felony convictions. he was arrested and convicted of using an AK47 to shoot into a car driven by the current boyfriend of his ex. According to the laws cited above he should have been sentanced to at least 20 years. His sentance? 3 years. (And yes I know that people will dispute me on this, as they have in the past when I brought this up. Should I start a thread posting the trials and convictions?)

Maybe, just maybe if we started enforcing the laws we have then wew could cut down the amounts of crime in general and the amount of firearms involved crime in specific.

Cat